Accelerating the Circular Economy

In London, for all referable projects and some major projects (in certain areas), the London Plan circular economy requirements and associated guidance must be followed. This policy, I believe, is world leading. Whilst other countries may do circular economy better through more organic and socially led development, the policy mechanisms in place aren't as strong as in London. This is great, and in the short time since its publication the London Plan has led to a noticeable change in attitude towards retention and reclamation of materials. Conveniently, the media coverage of the planned demolition of the Marks and Spencer building on Oxford Street and subsequent government intervention has created a perfect storm for the circular economy policy to take hold.

So, what does the London Plan require? Simply, it requires referrable developments to demonstrate whether existing buildings on site are suitable for re-use, and if so, whether they are suited to the proposed development of the site. This is done through a pre-redevelopment audit, which should be reviewed by an independent third party. But there is a critical problem which can undermine these assessments, which is subjectivity.

Is it technically feasible to retain the building?? There are many reasons why retention may not be feasible, such as the building age, condition, floor heights, and systems used to construct it. But in most cases, most engineers would say that most buildings are technically suitable for re-use, in that they exist, and have done for some time, without falling down.

So, the more important question, and the one which is most complex, is whether retaining an existing building is suited to the requirements of the site? But to answer this, you first need to answer the question "what is the site suitable for?". Which creates a problem.

The maximum extent of development may be broadly defined by local development plans and constraints, whilst commercial viability provides the minimum extent of development. Within these constraints, there could be several options for redevelopment, each with subtle sub-options. A building could be residential, commercial, a hotel, mixed use. It could be anywhere from 10 to 20 storeys high, in different parts of the site. If multiple buildings exist on the site, one could be retained, or multiple could be retained. Or they could all be demolished. Basements may or may not be added.

But even going back to the initial constraints, what is or isn't commercially viable is a very foggy area... Take the Marks and Spencer's case, the rejection of planning consent was met with the claim that the Client would leave the site as retention wasn't commercially viable. This is such a significant part of the process, yet rarely is evidence provided to justify this position.

So, I would suggest that the circular economy guidance and decision tree questions should be reshaped slightly, following the question of whether it is technically feasible to retain the building. At Elliott Wood, we frame the next question in the following way: What is the best scheme for the site which maximises retention of existing buildings? I think this is the north star of what we should be setting as a standard target for every development. This almost always will result in the lowest carbon and least environmentally damaging scheme. This should be the first scheme reviewed for the site, developed properly, and assessed before other options are considered, setting the baseline.

Following this, the next question should be asked is "Is this commercially viable?". If the answer to this is "no", a justification should be provided outlining reasons why and the assessment undertaken, provided for review. If the answer is "yes", the easiest way forward would be to develop this scheme.

However, the following question may also be asked "Would a different scheme, compromising elements of retention, provide other benefits which may justify this compromise?" This would provide a well thought out review of other options, alongside positive justifications. These can then be presented in a pre-redevelopment audit, and a view taken as to which option on balance provides the best solution for the site. In some cases, this may be a new build development, on which additional planning conditions may be added to mitigate the impact of reduced retention. For example, to deconstruct and reclaim certain elements on site for re-use, to meet UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standards limits (upon publication), or to achieve a much higher Biodiversity Net Gain.

I think if all projects followed this process, the shape of our built environment would change significantly for the better. At present, all too many projects commence with the sole intention of being demolish and new build. Design teams are often appointed to deliver this vision. And on these projects, although retention schemes are drafted to meet the policy requirements, little meaningful thought is put into them, meaning they are often discounted on viability grounds. Intelligent people spend more time developing arguments for demolition than developing schemes maximising retention. So for most projects in our industry, the current approach and mindset means we never actually put to paper the best proposal for the site.

I've seen this through first-hand experience on projects, through projects I've reviewed for local authorities, and of course on projects shared in the media and on planning portals. At Elliott Wood, we approach every project through the lens I outlined above to achieve the best solutions for our Clients, and for the environment. My revised decision tree is provided below.

?

?

?